"My name is Santiago Mora and I am a professor at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Today - as a victim of the law - I am forced to start a hunger strike.

I married Claudia Rocha in 1986 in Bogot", Colombia, and later moved to Canada with three children of ours. In 2008, at my wife"s request, we arranged for a legal separation and a divorce in Colombia. In December 2008, Claudia left the family home in Fredericton for good. She also accepted money representing an equal division of our assets, in conformity with the separation agreement, along with an agreement that frees her from any monetary responsibility with our children; this agreement further stipulates that there would be no demands of alimony between us.

In 2012, Claudia, immediately after having lost her job with the government of the province of New Brunswick, filed a lawsuit against me, ignoring the separation agreement from Colombia, as well as the payments she had already received based on that agreement.

In October 2013, the New Brunswick court ordered that 63% of my salary should be delivered to Claudia Rocha to ensure her maintenance, and another 20% to her attorney. As I can no longer afford to pay mortgage, the alienation of 83% of my salary forces me to put on sale the house where I live with my daughter. It also forces me to live on approximately $800 per month, from which I have to pay $375 for the room of my youngest son, who is attending university out of town.

It is incredible that after working all my life I was without a trial imposed by court a condition under which I cannot pay for my basic needs, let alone hire a lawyer to defend myself. " - http://aurelianob22.wix.com...

Thoughts?

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

I agree that alimony is bogus though. I understand why it was necessary when women were not permitted to work, but now that both sexes are working, the idea that one partner should pay the other after it is over is definitely ridiculous. I also think people need to be smarter about whom they marry.

At 11/5/2013 5:44:32 PM, thett3 wrote:Marriage is a legal deathtrap for men, and the chances of that changing are pretty low

Alimony is for whichever partner is less wealthy, not just for women. You could always just marry someone who is wealthier than you are . . . or have a prenup.

I was talking about marriage in general. For example, custody battles are almost always won by the mother. Moreover the fact remains that women generally work less and for less than men do, so alimony payments also disproportionately harm men compared with women.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/5/2013 5:44:32 PM, thett3 wrote:Marriage is a legal deathtrap for men, and the chances of that changing are pretty low

Alimony is for whichever partner is less wealthy, not just for women. You could always just marry someone who is wealthier than you are . . . or have a prenup.

I was talking about marriage in general. For example, custody battles are almost always won by the mother. Moreover the fact remains that women generally work less and for less than men do, so alimony payments also disproportionately harm men compared with women.

Custody battles are won by the primary caregiver. If you want to beat your wife in the custody battle, make yourself the primary caregiver. (Also keep in mind that residential custody is MORE EXPENSIVE in terms of finances and effort than paying child support is-the stigma against child support is ridiculous because you're not paying nearly what the other partner is investing in caring for the child)-so I don't see how men are losing on that account.

The other problem is fixed by getting rid of cultural norms. You can also be smart about whom you marry, and pick someone who is going to work full time.

At 11/5/2013 5:44:32 PM, thett3 wrote:Marriage is a legal deathtrap for men, and the chances of that changing are pretty low

Alimony is for whichever partner is less wealthy, not just for women. You could always just marry someone who is wealthier than you are . . . or have a prenup.

I was talking about marriage in general. For example, custody battles are almost always won by the mother. Moreover the fact remains that women generally work less and for less than men do, so alimony payments also disproportionately harm men compared with women.

Custody battles are won by the primary caregiver.

Ahh--no, not always. The system/people are clearly biased against men since women are viewed as better caregivers than men. Although yes, most of the custody wins are due to women being the caretaker.

If you want to beat your wife in the custody battle, make yourself the primary caregiver. (Also keep in mind that residential custody is MORE EXPENSIVE in terms of finances and effort than paying child support is-the stigma against child support is ridiculous because you're not paying nearly what the other partner is investing in caring for the child)

Yeah, people don't generally want to keep their kids because it will save them child support payments.

-so I don't see how men are losing on that account.

They're losing their kids and giving a significant amount of their income for them to be raised by someone else, I would say plenty of fathers would view that as a pretty big deal.

The other problem is fixed by getting rid of cultural norms. You can also be smart about whom you marry, and pick someone who is going to work full time.

Getting rid of that cultural norm is extremely unlikely to happen, and most people don't choose who they marry based on the financial situation of a possible divorce. It isn't about being financially "smart" it's about sharing your life with someone.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/5/2013 10:29:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:I agree that alimony is bogus though. I understand why it was necessary when women were not permitted to work, but now that both sexes are working, the idea that one partner should pay the other after it is over is definitely ridiculous. I also think people need to be smarter about whom they marry.

I think the idea of alimony is best explained as a metaphor for a business (marriage = business agreement).

Basically, you both pool your resources to create $X value and generating $Y income.Now, when you dissolve the partnership, should you be out said income?

It doesn't necessarily have to be because the husband works and the wife can't get a job, it is, say, the wife left her career to care for her family and because of this, the husband is CEO. Or, the husband works two jobs so the wife can start a business, which takes off.Should either spouse be out the income they sacrificed to make possible?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 11/5/2013 10:29:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:I agree that alimony is bogus though. I understand why it was necessary when women were not permitted to work, but now that both sexes are working, the idea that one partner should pay the other after it is over is definitely ridiculous. I also think people need to be smarter about whom they marry.

I think the idea of alimony is best explained as a metaphor for a business (marriage = business agreement).

Basically, you both pool your resources to create $X value and generating $Y income.Now, when you dissolve the partnership, should you be out said income?

It doesn't necessarily have to be because the husband works and the wife can't get a job, it is, say, the wife left her career to care for her family and because of this, the husband is CEO. Or, the husband works two jobs so the wife can start a business, which takes off.Should either spouse be out the income they sacrificed to make possible?

That doesn't happen in the majority of marriages, and in the ones that it does happen, you can always pay back the income that was sacrificed. That doesn't entitle you to monthly checks, however, unless there was some prior contract.

At 11/5/2013 10:29:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:I agree that alimony is bogus though. I understand why it was necessary when women were not permitted to work, but now that both sexes are working, the idea that one partner should pay the other after it is over is definitely ridiculous.

You're completely missing the point of alimony. It's not to remedy some archaic cultural norm, it's to avoid giving the bread-winner power over his or her spouse. If I marry you and I make a million dollars a year, I can put pressure on you to stay with me even if I beat the isht out of you whenever I feel like it. Once I establish you at that level of income, I have the power to rip the rug out from underneath you. With all the other issues you'd have to deal with, it effectively puts you between a rock and a hard place - and alimony is a way to even the financial playing field.

I also think people need to be smarter about whom they marry.

I think people should be smarter about everything. If you're implying that they should suffer the consequences, then what good is that going to do? I almost married somebody a couple years ago that would have been a mistake... Do you understand all the variables at play here?

As for the professor, he's a complete d-bag. Going on a hunger-strike for issues of ethics is a powerful statement. Going on a hunger-strike because of how much money you are getting, no matter how illegitimate your circumstances may be, is the work of a buffoon. That guy still makes as much money as I do - I'm supposed to feel sorry for him because he's USED to getting more money? And don't get me started on the fact that he has kids. This perhaps isn't as obvious to you younger people, but when you are a parent, your life is no longer meaningful simply to enjoy yourself. As a parent, your life has meaning primarily through your ability to enrich your children's lives. Finances are only a small part of that. For this incredible a--hole to be able to potentially let himself die, knowing his kids need guidance and support, is just unbelievable. Just imagine if your father went on a hunger strike because of his alimony payments to your mother. This guy needs a b1tch-slap like no other...

Alimony is utter fraud. This isn't 1850. Feminists will of course ignore or deny this but alimony and child support need to be removed from the law. Equal rights mean equal responsibilities.

We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years